Excerpts: "A CACHE of letters from Prince Philip which led Princess Diana to fear for her life has sensationally gone missing, a court was told yesterday........................................"

"The letters were seized during a police raid on the home of Diana’s former butler Paul Burrell, who was entrusted to keep them as proof of the threat against her by the terrified Princess................."

"Mr Al Fayed’s lawyer, Michael Mansfield, QC said he wanted answers from the Royals about their dealings with the police and demanded to know the whereabouts of key letters written by and sent to Diana......"

"But, at a pre-inquest hearing, a lawyer acting for the Metropolitan Police said they had disappeared.........."

More pictures might have allayed some of the suspicions put onto the royal establishment. The pictures I would most like to see are from the cameras in the tunnel which were "not working" that night, or more probably were working but confiscated into secrecy.

Then I'd like more pictures to determine if Diana was, by some reports, walking around after the accident? I suppose whoever claimed that was ridiculed and mocked into silence.

But if it's true that she wasn't, then there wouldn't be any pictures (on account of it didn't happen), so we'd be back where we are now - with people who think she was murdered saying that the evidence has been concealed. It's a no-win situation.

More pictures might have allayed some of the suspicions put onto the royal establishment. The pictures I would most like to see are from the cameras in the tunnel which were "not working" that night, or more probably were working but confiscated into secrecy.

Then I'd like more pictures to determine if Diana was, by some reports, walking around after the accident? I suppose whoever claimed that was ridiculed and mocked into silence.

Why do you need pictures to determine that she was walking? The first doctor on the stage and the people of the fire brigade said that they needed 45 minutes to cut her out of the car. Independent experts all over the world say that in a case like that you need help within 20 minutes, otherwise there is no way you are going to survive. And the whole proofs, reliable, well-established proofs are in the Paget-report.

As for the cameras that were turned off - things like that happen. In Germany a lot of traffic lights on the motorways through towns are switched off by night... Don't you think that with that much money involved pics or witnesses would have turned up by now to claim that the cameras were working in fact? How many people do you think are in the know with such a plan? The whole fire brigade plus ambulance team plus doctors who are on service during the night in a large city like Paris?

As fro prince Philip: the report has established that Diana in fact feared the prince. But that was before her divorce. The letter Burrelll presented was written before her divorce. Of course she was afraid then, because then the "establishment" has something to win from her death: Philip's son would have been spared a divorce and a hefty payment. They could have buried her in all honours because she still was a memeber of the Royal family then and all would have been happy (except the boys, of course - but hey, they don't count for the granddad, according to al-Fayed...)) But afterwards? Sorry, Diana was on the straight and fast line towards ridiculing herself in public with a boyfriend like Dodi. What better thing could have happened than her marrying Dodi, losing the name "princess of Wales" and become the neglected and complaining wife of yet another poor husband....

Where is the motive there and then?

__________________'To dare is to lose one step for but a moment, not to dare is to lose oneself forever' - Crown Prince Frederick of Denmark in a letter to Miss Mary Donaldson as stated by them on their official engagement interview.

"The letters were seized during a police raid on the home of Diana’s former butler Paul Burrell, who was entrusted to keep them as proof of the threat against her by the terrified Princess."
Doesn't that just make ya just wanna go Hm

"the terrified princess", did I miss that one?

It was Di posing for the photographers on a boat wasn't it, or was that a look a like? If Burrell had anything else sensational, I'm sure we would have heard about it long before now. Perhaps he is saving the contents of those letters (which if they had been that 'juicy', he would have photocopied or scanned) for when his job of promoting a wine runs out!

It was Di posing for the photographers on a boat wasn't it, or was that a look a like? If Burrell had anything else sensational, I'm sure we would have heard about it long before now. Perhaps he is saving the contents of those letters (which if they had been that 'juicy', he would have photocopied or scanned) for when his job of promoting a wine runs out!

Make me want to go Hmm, no it makes me want to go

We HAVE heard about it long before now. Burrell quite clearly stated that Prince Philip and Diana did have sharp words during the course of their correspondence-from both sides-but that they also forged an amicable relationship as a result. Burrell's statements that have been largely ignored by the press when they got in the way of painting a portrait of a "terrified" princess.

I'm no fan of Burrell's, but he hasn't been the one putting forth the image that Diana was in fear for her life that last summer. If anything, he's continually stressed that she was developing mutual conciliatory friendships with her former parents in law and husband.

Ambiguous conspiracy theories don't make me go "Hmm" either-they simply make me wonder why Prince Philip waited until a year after the divorce when he had 16 years to make that call to his alleged henchmen.

Yesterday, Lady Butler-Sloss accepted that the inquest should be postponed until October because Fayed's lawyer argued there was a massive amount of work to do. What, after nine and a half years?
...
Meanwhile, William and Harry, once again, have to suffer the ploughing up of their dead mother's most intimate affairs.

Burrell's statements that have been largely ignored by the press when they got in the way of painting a portrait of a "terrified" princess.
.

The pictures that were on the television and in the UK press that summer, did not show a picture of a 'terrified' Di. The articles in most UK papers about her at that time, painted a less than flattering picturer, not fostering the illusion of a terrified woman.

I wasn't suggesting that Burrell had 'put forth' the image that she was terrified, but that if he had anything incriminating against Prince Philip, he would have scanned or copied it, for release in a tell all book.

If he had anything really incriminating do any of us think he would be reduced to 'Australian Princess' or promoting wine?

I wasn't suggesting that Burrell had 'put forth' the image that she was terrified, but that if he had anything incriminating against Prince Philip, he would have scanned or copied it, for release in a tell all book.

I know. I was agreeing with you. If Burrell did have some belief that the Princess was terrified, he wouldn't have put forth the opposite view.

Could one or more of our British posters tell me what a juror is paid for doing jury service?

Do they get so much per day? Does it equal their normal pay? Does their employer have to make up the difference? Does their employer have to continue employing them? Can the employer sack them for not being at work if the jury service is too long?

Recently in NSW we had a jury trial aborted when one of the jurors simply told the judge that they couldn't continue sitting on the jury as it was costing them too much money - the daily allowance wasn't covering the mortgage and their employer wasn't required to pay them anything during this period, although they couldn't be sacked either.

This is why I am curious about the payment of jurors and their job protection etc as this case could go for eight months - that is a long time to be away from a job, particularly if the payment isn't at least matching the normal pay.

Personally I certainly couldn't afford to do an eight month case as I wouldn't be able to last on my savings for that long and the daily rate wouldn't cover anywhere near my expenses (and I don't have a mortgage but I do have rates etc).

Everyone has to do jury service unless you're in a reserved occupation or an occupation that makes you biased. For example, nuns can't do jury service. If you work, your loss of earnings is reimbursed and your travel expenses to the court are also paid but if you're unemployed, you just get travel expenses. Sometimes the jury are accomodated in a hotel which the court pays for but mostly you go home after each day. Once you've turned 18, you have to do jury service at least once. Employers can't sack you whilst you're on court and probably take a temp if the case is extremely pro-longed.

We're re-opening this thread after a massive cleanup. Remember to keep it civil and stay on topic.

Regards, Your British forum moderators

__________________"One thing we can do is make the choice to view the world in a healthy way. We can choose to see the world as safe with only moments of danger rather than seeing the world as dangerous with only moments of safety."